New or Grew?

[public hermit]

It kinda strikes me as funny how we decide what is preposterous and what is not, only according to our habit of assessing some absolute value to time. To us it might sound like madness, but it seems a lot more simple for God who 'invented' time, to manipulate it to his heart's content, than for him to do something ACTUALLY logically self-contradictory, such as lend a small portion of absolute sovereignty (i.e. autonomy) to mere creatures, causing them to be self-caused first causes.

Not to demean your pov, I'm just saying it strikes me as funny. But as to your point: Why is it preposterous, really?

I wouldn't say that he created it to look old. I'll go even more preposterous and say he can make is actually old, and that, instantaneously, if he wishes. He is, after all the maker and owner and engineer and the very source and essence of, Time.

We are using our terminology and our understanding, to treat this subject that is quite a ways beyond us. Not that we shouldn't treat it, but we don't know what we are talking about.

The reason it is preposterous is because it is not how everything that God created works. Things that are finite come into existence, hang around for a period of time, and through a process of deterioration leave existence. God set the precedent for finite creation. He set the precedent and left tell-tale signs so we would not be mistaken. It is true, we could posit the premise of the OP and say that God is deceiving us. That is a novel approach, but it tells against the evidence and smacks of blasphemy. More to the point, such a premise is ad hoc. It's trying to make things fit a preconceived narrative, instead of letting God's creation speak. Creation has been subjected to futility and the bondage of decay (not just the appearance thereof) by its Creator in hopes it will be set free.

Besides, the passage quoted isn't saying that it simply appears old. That much is clear.

 

[Mark Quayle]

If He created it just to look old, that may be true; but if He created it old (not "just to look" old), then that's another matter altogether.

I agree, but that is our semantics. From God's POV, what is really the difference? Maybe he made it actually old so it would look old.

 

[Strathos]

That verse means that God created the heavens and earth long ago, not that He made them recently but gave them the illusion of age.

Nice to see you're doing okay, though.

 

[Mark Quayle]

The reason it is preposterous is because it is not how everything that God created works. Things that are finite come into existence, hang around for a period of time, and through a process of deterioration leave existence. God set the precedent for finite creation. He set the precedent and left tell-tale signs so we would not be mistaken. It is true, we could posit the premise of the OP and say that God is deceiving us. That is a novel approach, but it tells against the evidence and smacks of blasphemy. More to the point, such a premise is ad hoc. It's trying to make things fit a preconceived narrative, instead of letting God's creation speak. Creation has been subjected to futility and the bondage of decay (not just the appearance thereof) by its Creator in hopes it will be set free.

Besides, the passage quoted isn't saying that it simply appears old. That much is clear.

Why would he be deceiving us by making it appear old? Why would he not be able to make it actually old, instantly, or over the course of a day's time, from his point-of-view? Do we really know what we are talking about to say, 'well, that would be unusual, therefore, it is preposterous'? We write stories and suppose theories on time travel and manipulation of actual facts and congratulate ourselves on our ingenuity. Why do we say God cannot? God is absolute. His 'inventions' are not. And his creatures are ignorant, foolish, self-satisfied with the range of their intellect.

But as I said elsewhere, Genesis does give us some hints, I think, such as the fact that apparently the account begins with him having already, in the beginning, having created the heavens and the earth. Then the account begins of his restructuring things. Empty chaotic earth and water, first, then order.

 

[public hermit]

Then the account begins of his restructuring things. Empty chaotic earth and water, first, then order.

Right, process. It is a process that has a beginning, middle, end. Just like everything else in creation. Why does the premise come up that God made it look old? Because it needs to fit a certain human presumption concerning scripture. Scripture and creation are not at odds. They are both God's. If it's painful to admit that one's preconceived notion doesn't fit the two, oh well. Work it out, but don't make God out to be a liar, a deceiver. If the rocks look old, the simple conclusion is they are. Seriously.

 

[ewq1938]

If God created Adam twenty years old, Adam died when he was 950.

I just used twenty as an arbitrary number to make my point.

If God created him thirty, then he died when he was 960.

If God created him forty, then he died when he was 970.

Etc.

I think that works against your argument.

Gen 5:5 And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.
Gen 5:6 And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos:
Gen 5:7 And Seth lived after he begat Enos eight hundred and seven years, and begat sons and daughters:
Gen 5:8 And all the days of Seth were nine hundred and twelve years: and he died.

Since Seth was basically at zero when born, and died at 912, I think the same would apply to Adam who would have been the same zero age at his beginning and died at 930. Adam was not 950 when he died.

 

[AV1611VET]

There's also the gap theory. That there was a first earth age, and then similar to the time of Noah, there was a great cataclysm and the earth was made void and then re-created.

The Gap Theory assumes a pre-Adamic race.

And some questions:

1. In that first circle, labeled Original Creation, how long did it take God to create it?
2. Who is "ha-Satan"?
3. Isn't this "chaos" arrived at by changing words in the King James Bible in Ezekiel somewhere?
4. Should Genesis 1:31a read ... "And God saw every thing that he had remade, and, behold, it was very good."

 

[AV1611VET]

Simply, but elegantly, put.

Um ...

 

[AV1611VET]

Genesis does say that in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

No, It doesn't.

I don't mean to be crass, but this is a sore spot with me.

God's translators in 1611 did not put an "s" on "heaven".

The fact is, God created two more heavens (or "firmaments") later in the Week.

Paul warns about pluralizing words that shouldn't be pluralized.

Galatians 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

But for the record, the Bible does not ... nor never has ... said:

"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."

 

[AV1611VET]

Maybe he made it actually old so it would look old.

Either way, He made it old.

Why He made it old is known only to Him.

I suspect it has to do with the fact that Adam would have starved to death waiting for his fruit trees to grow.

(Okay ... I get it ... no death before the Fall. )

 

[ewq1938]

No, It doesn't.

I don't mean to be crass, but this is a sore spot with me.

God's translators in 1611 did not put an "s" on "heaven".

No, they didn't and that is a translation error. The Hebrew word in the manuscripts is plural so they word is actually "heavens".


No real surprise there since we know there are 3 heavens and all of them were created "in the beginning".

haš·šā·ma·yim
הַשָּׁמַ֖יִם
the heavens


Gen_2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

Translated correctly here.

 

[AV1611VET]

Nice to see you're doing okay, though.

Thank you, Strathos!

 

[public hermit]

Yeah, see. "God's translators in 1611" There's no point in even trying.

 

[ewq1938]

Either way, He made it old.

Why He made it old is known only to Him.

I suspect it has to do with the fact that Adam would have starved to death waiting for his fruit trees to grow.

Adam had plenty to eat as fruit was created on day 3. He only would have had to walk outside the garden to find them.

Gen 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
Gen 1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, they didn't and that is a translation error.

Ya ... God writes sloppy, doesn't He?

 

[AV1611VET]

Adam had plenty to eat as fruit was created on day 3.

Speaking of fruit, if God would have presented Adam with a bowl of raisins, would that constitute deception? since raisins are grapes that have gone through a drying process over time?

 

[Ceallaigh]

The Gap Theory assumes a pre-Adamic race.

And some questions:

1. In that first circle, labeled Original Creation, how long did it take God to create it?
2. Who is "ha-Satan"?
3. Isn't this "chaos" arrived at by changing words in the King James Bible in Ezekiel somewhere?
4. Should Genesis 1:31a read ... "And God saw every thing that he had remade, and, behold, it was very good."

The illustration I used came from:
Gap creationism

I don't know much about this theory beyond what little I remember from what I heard from Arnold Murray during broadcasts back in the 90s. Quite a lot of which are preserved on Youtube. I imagine there are also others lecturing about it on Youtube.

I'm not a proponent of this theory or Murray's teachings. I'm just aware of the existence of such.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm not a proponent of this theory or Murray's teachings. I'm just aware of the existence of such.

Oh, okay.

Sorry about that.

I thought you subscribed to it, and was curious as to what you thought about it.

 

[d taylor]

Arnold Murray contended that we all had a pre-existence in the first earth age, and those who stood against Satan than are now God's elect in this earth age.

Here's a couple a of quickies on that.

Well that is a reason to listen no further, mans original beginning was in Genesis 1:26. The only being that could have inhabited the earth in Genesis 1:1 that has possible Biblical support would be satan and other angels.

 

[Carl Emerson]

He created Wine that was old...